Some Santa Barbara neighborhoods aren’t fairly represented in city government, and as a result, those residents aren’t given the same amount of access, attention or capital improvements, say plaintiffs who are suing the city over the at-large election system.

Both sides, the city and the plaintiffs, are commissioning studies to examine whether racially-polarized voting exists in Santa Barbara.

The lawsuit alleges the current system dilutes Latino votes by having council candidates elected on a citywide basis, and points to the lack of Latino representation on the City Council despite the fact that 38 percent of the city's population is Latino or Hispanic.

Frank Banales, who was born and raised in the Eastside neighborhood, said the push for district elections is all about proper representation and having someone who will “go to bat” for that area.

“I would rather have one council member from my district than the seven up there who don’t return my calls,” he said.

If each district had a council member who was accountable to its residents and advocated for that neighborhood, decisions would be made differently, he said.

Banales pointed to the lack of street lighting — despite the area being considered dangerous and outlined as a “safety zone” in the proposed gang injunction — and the destroyed Cacique Street bridge, which is still closed after being washed away 30-or-so years ago.

If a bridge in the San Roque neighborhood was wrecked, he said, it would be fixed within six months.

“More than anything else, we want this so we can make our neighborhoods safe for all of our children,” Banales said.

Banales and three of the other plaintiffs joined attorney Cappello at a news conference Thursday to discuss the lawsuit filing.

“We don’t have a voice,” said Jacqueline Inda, who works with at-risk youth and vehemently opposed the attempt to get a gang injunction.

Cappello said his firm’s two experts for this case have data to support the claim that Santa Barbara has racially-polarized voting — where voters of a minority vote differently than the majority.

Plaintiffs say the issue of district elections isn’t new, but long overdue.

Lawsuits dealing with the California Voting Rights Act have a judge first consider whether racially-polarized voting exists and then, if it does, hold another trial to find a solution, Cappello said.

The City Council has held several public meetings on the subject since Cappello and Banales announced the intent to sue in February. Council members considered, but rejected, putting the issue to voters this November.

Changing the election model can only be done by a majority vote or a court ruling, City Attorney Ariel Calonne said.

Now that the lawsuit was filed, the City Council could take its discussions behind closed doors.

Two of those cases were settled, with the cities required to put the issue to voters this year, while a judge ordered Palmdale to impose district elections. The city is fighting that ruling, according to news reports.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and must be free of profanity and abusive language and attacks.

By posting on Noozhawk, you:

» Agree to be respectful. Noozhawk encourages intelligent and impassioned discussion and debate, but now has a zero-tolerance policy for those who cannot express their opinions in a civil manner.

» Agree not to use Noozhawk’s forums for personal attacks. This includes any sort of personal attack — including, but not limited to, the people in our stories, the journalists who create these stories, fellow readers who comment on our stories, or anyone else in our community.

» Agree not to post on Noozhawk any comments that can be construed as libelous, defamatory, obscene, profane, vulgar, harmful, threatening, tortious, harassing, abusive, hateful, sexist, racially or ethnically objectionable, or that are invasive of another’s privacy.

» Agree not to post in a manner than emulates, purports or pretends to be someone else. Under no circumstances are readers posting to Noozhawk to knowingly use the name or identity of another person, whether that is another reader on this site, a public figure, celebrity, elected official or fictitious character. This also means readers will not knowingly give out any personal information of other members of these forums.

» Agree not to solicit others. You agree you will not use Noozhawk’s forums to solicit and/or advertise for personal blogs and websites, without Noozhawk’s express written approval.

Noozhawk’s management and editors, in our sole discretion, retain the right to remove individual posts or to revoke the access privileges of anyone who we believe has violated any of these terms or any other term of this agreement; however, we are under no obligation to do so.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.